Maybrick Diary Typescript 1992 (KS Ver.)

[Kattrup]

He corrects himself in the same thread near the bottom of post #1079.

JM

My reply removed - no point in it, Jonathan has answered this.

(I was just going to confirm that Keith's copy was definitely the one Jonathan published, above.)

thank you both

[rjpalmer]

Hi Kattrup.

Would you agree that the strange marks at the beginning and end of certain lines of verse were made by the original typist to indicate that lines needed to be scored through (ie. crossed out)?

It must be some figure on the Amstrad word processor, like a sort of asterisk; it's too uniform to be handmade.

Then someone later (either Mike or Anne or Shirley) crossed them through with a pen?

It sounds trivial but it has considerable importance.

Thanks,

RP

[rjpalmer]

I think it is the division symbol-- ÷ --but between the word processor and the printer it is blurry. An obelus.

"obelus: A mark (— or ÷) used in ancient manuscripts to indicate a doubtful or spurious passage."

[Iconoclast]

Hi Kattrup.
Would you agree that the strange marks at the beginning and end of certain lines of verse were made by the original typist to indicate that lines needed to be scored through (ie. crossed out)?
It must be some figure on the Amstrad word processor, like a sort of asterisk; it's too uniform to be handmade.
Then someone later (either Mike or Anne or Shirley) crossed them through with a pen?
It sounds trivial but it has considerable importance.
Thanks,
RP

By dint of having owned a 1989 version of the Amstrad PCW myself, I would say (from memory) that it is Amstrad's asterisk, no more, no less.

They must have been intended to indicate - as you say - that those lines were scored through in the scrapbook. Looking at the handwriting and pen/pencil lines, I'd bet on the lines having been drawn through by Keith himself, but I'm sure he'll confirm (if he can remember - it was 30 years ago, after all).

[jmenges]

I edited the OP to include a link to a pdf download.
Right-click to save.

JM

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup.

Would you agree that the strange marks at the beginning and end of certain lines of verse were made by the original typist to indicate that lines needed to be scored through (ie. crossed out)?

It must be some figure on the Amstrad word processor, like a sort of asterisk; it's too uniform to be handmade.

Then someone later (either Mike or Anne or Shirley) crossed them through with a pen?

I would agree that the lines were marked for typographical edits, whether striking through or underscoring. Probably the Amstrad word processor did not have such advanced functions, so marking it like that was a work-around.

[erobitha]

I would agree that the lines were marked for typographical edits, whether striking through or underscoring. Probably the Amstrad word processor did not have such advanced functions, so marking it like that was a work-around.

I would agree on the workaround part and the limitations of the software to do strikethrough. However, it is equally fair to assume they were identifying the words as being in the scrapbook with a line through them, and it was a simple way to show they were struck through on the page. If you are transcribing things, do you ignore the struck-through text on the page? If so, it's not really a transcription. Then, it is just what you choose to transcribe. So it was right. They acknowledged it in the best way they could that the lines through the text on the page were there.

To draw a conclusion it was for typographical edits is an assumption that readers will need to think carefully about before reaching such a position. That is not being objective.

[Kattrup]

To draw a conclusion it was for typographical edits is an assumption that readers will need to think carefully about before reaching such a position. That is not being objective.

I didn’t mean for “edits” to be a contentious word, I just meant to agree that the markings, which do look like asterisks to me, were intended to mark particular lines.

[erobitha]

I didn’t mean for “edits” to be a contentious word, I just meant to agree that the markings, which do look like asterisks to me, were intended to mark particular lines.

My apologies if that was your meaning.

[rjpalmer]

Perhaps the most significant difference between the Barretts' transcription and Shirley Harrison's transcription can be found on page 25.

In reference to the 1889 Grand National, the Barretts transcribe the relevant line as:

"True the race was the finest I have seen..."

Whereas Harrison transcribed it as

"True the race was the fastest I have seen..."

This is significant because Harrison uses her transcription to argue that the diarist is demonstrating accurate knowledge of that year's Grand National. This argument is entirely lost if we stick with the Barretts' version.

Unfortunately, the relevant word in the diary is smudged, so one could argue which is the correct reading.

To me, the use of 'finest' seems to reflect other passages in the diary:

"Thomas was in fine health."

"Lowery was in fine spirits."

"Tomorrow I will purchase the finest knife money can buy...I will treat them to the finest, the very finest."

[erobitha]

I'm only speaking from the facsimile copy I can see at the end of Shirley Harrison's book, and it definitely looks like the S is central and a little distance from the end T.

This suggests to me fastest.

If someone has a better copy to share, it might be useful for other eyes to review.

[rjpalmer]

I don't think it is possible to determine. Perhaps if one had access to the original. Those at home will find the relevant sentence on p. 261 of Harrison's book.



One could argue that the long crossbar through the final letter (ie., "t") is meant to cross two "ts", but one can see in the proceeding word "the" and in the word "with" in the line below that this exaggerated crossbar is a common feature, so it doesn't tell us anything.

One could also argue the second letter is an "a," which conforms with "fastest"; on the other hand, it could be an "i" connected to an "n" as in "finest."

There would need to be another "t" in the middle of the word to be "fastest" and one could argue there is an upward stroke at that spot, but alas, that stroke looks similar to the incidental upward smudges at the beginning and ending of the word.

One can also see upward smears on the word "with" in the line beneath it and to the left, as if the penman's hand smeared over while the ink was still wet.

Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable drawing a conclusion without seeing the actual manuscript.

To me, it looks like there might be an 'e' before the s, and this is smeared upward, giving the false impression of a "t," but again, I wouldn't swear to it.

[Kattrup]

I don't think it is possible to determine. Perhaps if one had access to the original. Those at home will find the relevant sentence on p. 261 of Harrison's book.



One could argue that the long crossbar through the final letter (ie., "t") is meant to cross two "ts", but one can see in the proceeding word "the" and in the word "with" in the line below that this exaggerated crossbar is a common feature, so it doesn't tell us anything.

One could also argue the second letter is an "a," which conforms with "fastest"; on the other hand, it could be an "i" connected to an "n" as in "finest."

There would need to be another "t" in the middle of the word to be "fastest" and one could argue there is an upward stroke at that spot, but alas, that stroke looks similar to the incidental upward smudges at the beginning and ending of the word.

One can also see upward smears on the word "with" in the line beneath it and to the left, as if the penman's hand smeared over while the ink was still wet.

Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable drawing a conclusion without seeing the actual manuscript.

To me, it looks like there might be an 'e' before the s, and this is smeared upward, giving the false impression of a "t," but again, I wouldn't swear to it.

In my opinion, no doubt it’s “fastest”

Second letter rounded, no dot, while there’s an upward stroke for the middle t.

[jmenges]

Perhaps if one had access to the original.

Robert Smith's 25 Years of the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The True Facts (2017) contains a full color facsimile of the diary and is probably as close to the original as us peasants will come. There's no real difference in how the word appears in both it and Harrison's book.

I can scan the page if its requested.

JM

[rjpalmer]

In my opinion, no doubt it’s “fastest”

Second letter rounded, no dot, while there’s an upward stroke for the middle t.

Possibly--and I'm open to being wrong-- but there is no "e" after the "t," so technically, it this were the case, wouldn't it read fastst?

Finest is six letters; fastest is seven.